Peerless to cost $5 mil if Franchised

[BLeonard]

From Billsdaily.com:

Tag Values Set: If the Bills did decide to use the franchise tag on Peerless Price the club would have to give him $5.01 million this coming season, all of that dollar figure would count against the salary cap. He is the only Bill that has a chance of being tagged but that is unlikely. Tom Donahoe is not a big fan of using the tag, he would more likely re-sign Price before free agency or let him go in the open market.

http://www.billsdaily.com/news/#013103

That's too much to be giving to a #2 WR, IMO
I think a Transition Tag would be smarter.

-Bill

[RedEyE]

Ouch!

[BADTHINGSMAN]

Id tag him. Trade him for a good defensive player.Or 1st round pick. If we got a 1st round pick anywhere from 5th-17th pick, how mad would the Pats be. It would be like giving Bledsoe to us.

[BLeonard]

The problem is, the second they tag him, the money counts against the cap. And, it wouldn't be like the Pats giving Bledsoe to us... We'd still lose Price.

If they do any kind of tag, it'll likely be a transition tag. That way, he's only guaranteed the average of the top 10 WR's as opposed to the top 5.

-Bill

[BADTHINGSMAN]

At the moment we are losing Price anyway. If we want a good DT oe LB tag him and trade him. And the Bills miss the Bidding war for a certain player.

[venis2k1]

If we were to do that, it would be the sleaziest thing that a football team has ever done. This isnt the NBA. In the NFL you Sign a player to play for you, or you let him walk.

[BLeonard]

If the Bills were to tag Price tomorrow, that 5 million that it costs to keep him is taken off of their salary cap IMMEDIATELY. That means, the projected $15 million the Bills have to spend is down to $10 million without addressing a thing that they need. Sure, they get Peerless guaranteed for one season, but will have the same holes on defense. If you trade him, the teams that wants him would have to be willing to give up 2 1st round picks. Then, assuming the player we get is a $5 million player, HE costs 5 mil MORE... So, in one trade, you've taken our $15 million Salary Cap and turned it into $5 million. That's IF you get a team willing to give 2 first round draft picks.

You Franchise Peerless, you're stuck with him.

-Bill

[WG]

He'll go for between $4 and $5 M anyway. I think that if we were to offer him $4/yr. that he'd stay. He knows that we're the passingest team in football and while Gilbride's here that's not likely to change.

I don't think we should pay him what he's gonna get elsewhere. We'll lose Reed down the road if we sign Price. Why'd we spend a second round pick, a high one, on Reed last year if he isn't going to get the reps?

Makes no sense when we have 4 or 5 holes on D that need filling.

[BLeonard]

Well, a Transition Tag costs the Bills nothing, except that they have to pay him the average of the top 10 WR's in the NFL (and if the top 5 average out to just over $5 million, you're probably looking at $3-$4 million). At least that way, it forces another teams hand if they want to sign him to an offer sheet, and the Bills get a week to match that. If he leaves, it doesn't cost the Bills a dime. The Transition Tag would be a nice Fail-safe for them.

-Bill

[Tatonka]

if we tagged him and then traded him, it would cost us 5 mill up front, but then as soon as he is traded, his salary goes with him... i dont know how you get the idea that tagging him would cost us 10 million... the pats didnt absorb bledsoes 5 mill salary, we did..

the only part you would absorb if you trade a player is the signing bonus..

i dont think we need peerless back.. i like reed.

[Tatonka]

i am not against signing and trading him though.. whatever it takes to get the team better..

venis, you said that would be sleazy? why? peerless would get a new deal.. only a team that really needs him would trade for him, so it would still be one of the teams he was looking at as a free agent anyway.. and we could better our team.. what is sleazy about that?

[venis2k1]

Its just the way things are done in the NFL. The raiders are way over the cap, to get under it, they CUT their players. They dont trade them. If we were to sign a player just to trade him, the Bills franchise would be seen as a terrible place to play.

[BADTHINGSMAN]

I had season tickets this year(wedding gift) and only made 5 games of 8. I taped every game from home. Ive been watching these games past couple of days.

Ive changed my mind. We need Price. J.Reed is a good player. Im not sure about putting him at number 2 yet. He has only played 1 year. Keeping Price does so much for the offense. Moulds and Price outside and Reed over the middle. That IMHO will be better than the Rams 3 recievers they had.

Losing JR doesnt bother me a bit. Losing JR and PP does. Where will this Offense be without a WR to compliment Moulds? Reed isnt there yet. Sign Price keep the depth at WR. There still plenty of money to go after Defensive needs. Sign Price to a $4mil/4-5 year deal. Still have the cash to get a DT and a LB.

[WG]

Not the best ones. Keep in mind that some of that cap space has to go to rookies and secondary players that we sign.

I don't know why you think Reed can't cut it. I think he performed just fine this year. He was yards ahead of most WRs that I've ever seen in their rookie years. He may not have gotten the ball as much, but when he did, he caught it w/ the best hands on the team.

Losing JR is nothing. He had dropped balls, no TDs, only 32 catches. Let him go. Moore will do what JR did and more.

No pun intended.

[BADTHINGSMAN]

I know Reed can play a #2, He was good this year. I just dont see him doing what Price did. I cant think of 1 reciever that would wanna come in and play 3rd WR. Someone who could add depth. C.Johnson isnt a threat. Drafting a WR that takes away a Defensive pick in the draft. If Price did leave it would be awesome to pick up Ike Hilliard. Didnt put up Price #'s. He shouldnt be as expensive either.

Moore should do more. Much better blocker also. JR isnt great but he isnt a chump either. He should help the team he eventually ends up with.